Karnataka HC Directs Authorities to Not Grant Permission for Construction Near Protected Monuments  ||  Delhi HC Sets Aside Ruling to the Extent of Restraining Indiamart to Provide ‘PUMA’ Search Option  ||  HP HC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused Citing Delay in Initiating Trial Proceedings  ||  Madras HC: Certification of an Entire Film Cannot be Denied Without Specifying the Objections  ||  J&K HC: Mere Registration of Criminal Case Doesn’t Constitute ‘Criminal Proc.’ for Impounding Passpor  ||  SC Refuses to Entertain Urgent Hearing of Plea Against Felling 875 Trees in HP  ||  SC Refuses to Stop Incineration of Toxic Chemical Waste from Bhopal Gas Tragedy  ||  SC Declines to Interfere with HC’s Order to Decide Schedule for Tiruchendur Temple Consecration  ||  Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Mokobara in Trademark Case  ||  Delhi HC: Students Shouldn’t be Excluded from Admission because of Untimely Declaration of Results    

G Phadziri & Sons (Pty) Ltd vs Do Light Transport (Pty) Ltd and Another - (20 Feb 2023)

Clauses in which the annexures were mentioned had to be read not in isolation, but as part of the whole agreement

Contract

The issue in the appeal was whether an agreement concluded between the appellant, the first respondent and the second respondent was: (a) void for vagueness; and (b) necessitated a tacit term to be read into it as to its duration.

It is trite that a provision in a contract must be interpreted not only in the context of the contract as a whole, but also to give it a commercially sensible meaning. The clauses in which the annexures were mentioned had to be read not in isolation, but as part of the whole agreement. The high court was correct in holding that the tripartite agreement was not void for vagueness. This was because on any conceivable basis, when Phadziri invited Do Light to be its sub-contractor, both knew about the timetable for Do Light’s scheduled trips on the affected routes. It was therefore contrived for Phadziri to then suggest that the routes were not known, because the timetable was not attached to the tripartite agreement.

The parties seriously entered into the tripartite agreement and considered it capable of implementation, and, in fact, implemented it. Further, clauses 3.1 and 4.8 had to be read so as to give them, and the tripartite agreement, a commercially sensible meaning. Thus, the tripartite agreement had to be preserved and enforced. Turning to whether a tacit term was to be read into the agreement as to its duration, the Supreme Court held that the express duration term of the tripartite agreement had to be preserved and honoured. This was because, there was no evidence that the parties had meant for the duration of the tripartite agreement to be anything other than what it expressly said. Further, the term which Phadziri sought to impute into the agreement was in conflict with its express term as to its duration. It followed that the tripartite agreement was enforceable until the implementation of the integrated public transport services by the Department.

Tags : AGREEMENT   CLAUSES   IMPLEMENTATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved